It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Prezbo369
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: Tearman
And I don't believe any of those definitions, ergo.... I'm a... you know what.
You're a person who doesn't believe in... something... or nothing. The undefinable. In my book, that's not "not believing in God." It isn't anything.
Unless you hold a belief in god/s, regardless of how vague and paradoxical their descriptions are, you're an atheist.
The only way to not be an atheist is to be a theist. It's that simple.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
So gods are like the Lorax and have the same level of reality? i.e. they're imaginary creations of the human mind?
I can accept that actually. I think I'll choose Thor as my new imaginary deity ... apparently he happens to look a lot like Chris Hemsworth.
... and that hammer ... mmm hmm.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
An agnostic is waiting for evidence that will never come, in the vain superstitious hope that evidence for or against the existence of a deity will be produced.
Why don't you suspend your belief that such evidence exists. Are you hoping you’ll turn over a rock one day and you’ll find the inscription “God does not exist. Yours truly, The Universe”? The assumption that there is such evidence is as naive as the assumption there is a god. It’s annoying fence-sitting at best.
By utilizing, embodying and breathing life into their superstitious terms? Why don’t you call yourself a witch? It amounts to the same thing.
If god doesn’t exist, then you are speaking about literally nothing. That which doesn’t exist is nothing.
You are speaking about something, what does exist, namely, what god does exists as, which after a brief analysis, amounts to no more than some word in a book.
You are viewing agnosticism in the wrong light. You are viewing it as fence sitting, when in reality it is where you don't form an opinion at all. If the evidence for or against a creator doesn't exist, then an agnostic doesn't form an opinion about the creator. We aren't concerned with if the evidence actually exists or not. We are just concerned as to when we are allowed to form an opinion about the topic. Saying, "I don't know," is just an easier way of expressing that.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66
I understand what you're saying and it makes complete sense. But I have personal and philosophical reasons which have lead me to deny all labels except for my birth name, which has served me well for my labelling purposes.
Agnosticism is about admitting that you don't know the answer, or that you simply do not care if there is a god or there is not. Whether there is a god or not, doesn't affect my life, I'm content whether evidence is found or it is not. There is no superstition at all, there is an admission that we don't know what we don't actually know. People aren't just waiting around hoping for evidence, they literally don't care. You seem to think that they are losing sleep over not knowing the answer and are desperately waiting for evidence to arise. That isn't the case, they are content in not knowing the answer.
That's why I call myself an agnostic atheist. I am technically atheist because I reject pretty much all beliefs about deities, but I am willing to change my views IF we do in fact discover evidence of a god's existence. That doesn't mean I'm wasting my life away sitting around waiting for evidence, I simply don't care. Nobody is assuming that any evidence exists aside from the theists. Agnosticism comes from a position of honesty. You call it annoying fence sitting, but is it really annoying to be honest and admit we do not know the answer to a question that we really don't know the answer to?
Please explain how admitting we do not know the answer or rejecting other people's superstitious claims is breathing life in the superstitious terms? It still makes no sense. By rejecting those beliefs I am literally NOT utilizing, embodying or breathing life into them. That is the whole point.
But the point is we don't know.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I don’t think you are losing sleep over it. I think you’re advocating a position as if it was rational, when in fact you’ve just given up.
Agnosticism is based on the assumption we cannot know either way. How do you know we cannot know either way?
I stated that taking the label “atheist” is no different than taking taking the label “witch”. Both are terms born out of superstitious beliefs, invented by believers and the orthodoxy of the day, used in order to justify the auto de fe of innocent people, and to condemn people to the fiery flames of hell. Atheists either exist and the burnings were justified, or atheists never existed in the first place, and believers were wrong all along, just like witches.
That’s the assumption you’re pushing, yes. But it’s just a refusal to weigh the evidence and decide. Fence-sitting.
If only atheists would just meet together in some kind of large building and express their shared beliefs and perhaps donate a small bit of money to keep that establishment solvent, they could organize enough to fight this kind of injustice.
Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
atheists.org...
originally posted by: Dr1Akula
a reply to: Annee
. . . atheism is a disbelief in the divine in general, and of course not a denial
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Dr1Akula
a reply to: Annee
. . . atheism is a disbelief in the divine in general, and of course not a denial
I am atheist. I understand the difference. That's all that matters.
Whatever you are trying to convince yourself of in all those words, is lost on me.
originally posted by: Dr1Akula
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Dr1Akula
a reply to: Annee
. . . atheism is a disbelief in the divine in general, and of course not a denial
I am atheist. I understand the difference. That's all that matters.
Whatever you are trying to convince yourself of in all those words, is lost on me.
Why would you think I was trying to convince anyone,
it's merely my input on our discussion of definitions.
''all those words'' are my arguments directed to your quote from ''atheists.org'' about the definition of atheism and monotheistic influence as quoted, and it's my answer to this question in your quote:
''So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists?''
I just tried to explain why.
Also, referencing a quote from ''atheists.org'', when trying to define your own personal beliefs or disbeliefs, looks evangelical and makes it hard for us to argue that atheists aren't one organized religion, or that we don't share views, morality standards, like some theist's or the op feminist's claims.
PS sorry for my too many words.I know I am not good at writing,
but I can't express myself in English any better... sorry
(although atheism is a disbelief in the divine in general, and of course not a denial)